Plaintiff
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (“State Farm”)
brings this subrogation claim based on a fire that it alleges
was caused by a battery pack designed and manufactured by
Defendant TD HiTech Energy, Inc. (“TD HiTech”), a
Taiwanese corporation. TD HiTech moves to dismiss the claims
against it under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction. State Farm and the distributor of the product,
Defendant BMC USA Corp. (“BMC USA”), oppose TD
HiTech's motion.

Because
the Court finds sufficient evidence of a regular flow of
sales to the United States and the State of Minnesota, based
on which TD HiTech would have anticipated being haled into
court within the state, the Court will deny TD HiTech's
motion.

BACKGROUND

State
Farm brings this subrogation claim for amounts it paid its
insured, William Neuenschwander (the “Insured”),
for property damage resulting from a fire at his home in
Bloomington, Minnesota, on August 8, 2014. (Notice of
Removal, Ex. A (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 2, 10,
June 1, 2016, Docket No. 1.) State Farm alleges that the fire
originated from a charging battery that TD HiTech designed
and manufactured. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 13.) State
Farm alleges that TD HiTech negligently designed,
manufactured, and/or marketed the battery, and that TD HiTech
breached implied warranties with respect to the product.
(Id. ¶¶ 20-21, 27-28.)

TD
HiTech is a Taiwanese corporation, with its principal place
of business in Taipei City, Taiwan, that specializes in
manufacturing and selling lithium batteries. (Decl. of TD
HiTech Energy, Inc. (“TD HiTech Decl.”)
¶¶ 2-3, Jan. 18, 2017, Docket No. 38.) TD HiTech
contends that it does not do any direct business in or
targeted at Minnesota: it does not sell goods in Minnesota,
employ a sales force in Minnesota, “direct sales of its
products to consumers in Minnesota, ” “direct
advertising of its products in Minnesota, ” or
“solicit[] business from Minnesota residents, directly
or through any form of advertising expressly targeted toward
the residents of Minnesota.” (Id. ¶¶
3-11, 15-23.) TD HiTech also contends that it “has
never sought to serve the market in Minnesota indirectly or
through others, ” nor has it “entered into any
contracts, service agreements or other agreements for the
purpose of promoting or advertising any product or service
within” Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.)

However,
TD HiTech has sold many batteries in the United States and
significant numbers of its batteries have been sold to
Minnesota customers. Between 2015 and February 2017, TD
HiTech sold and shipped 5, 836 batteries to the United
States, with a total cost of more than $60 million. (Decl. of
Jeffrey R. Mulder (“Mulder Decl.”), Ex.
3[2]at
1-2, Mar. 31, 2017, Docket No. 69.) TD HiTech admits to
having customers in California and Massachusetts, including
BMC USA. (Id., Ex. 1 at 4.) BMC USA has 26 customers
in Minnesota, including the Insured's company, Mobile
Entertainment, and BMC USA has “sold hundreds of
batteries manufactured by TD HiTech to customers in
Minnesota, either in connection with the sale of bikes or as
stand-alone transactions.” (Decl. of Markus Eggimann
(“Eggimann Decl.”) ¶ 5, Mar. 31, 2017,
Docket No. 68.) Mobile Entertainment alone purchased ten
bicycles and ten additional batteries at a cost of $30,
485.00 in 2014. (Mulder Decl., Ex. 13.) Records suggest
Mobile Entertainment has purchased sixty-two TD HiTech
batteries since 2014. (Eggimann Decl., Exs. 2-3.) TD
HiTech's website shows that its batteries are used in
Stromer Electric bikes, (Aff. of Grant Sackett
(“Sackett Aff.”), Ex. 2, Mar. 31, 2017, Docket
No. 76), and the website includes a location map with three
locations in the United States, including one in the Midwest,
(id., Ex. 1).

State
Farm contends that TD HiTech also sent an agent, Michael
Fritz, to Minnesota. Fritz attended two pre-suit inspections
in the Midwest - in Minnesota (this case) and Wisconsin - and
his business card represents that he works for “HiTech
Energy” as “eBike Battery Technical
Representative North America.” (Decl. of Jeffrey R.
Mulder, Ex. 7 at 29, Jan. 24, 2017, Docket No. 49; Decl. of
Markus Eggimann, Ex. A at 4, Jan. 24, 2017, Docket No. 50.)
In response, TD HiTech states that it “did, for a
limited period of time, contract with . . . Fritz[] to assist
with certain local events - such as the initial investigation
of the subject incident - and provide feedback to TD HiTech,
” but as of March 17, 2017, “Fritz [was] no
longer contracted to perform this work.” (Mulder Decl.,
Ex. 8 at 35.)

ANALYSIS

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.